06-20-2003, 11:00 PM
Finally, a reason to join...
While I agree that something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits, I don't think this case should be written off without looking a bit deeper into it first. Granted, when I first heard about this, it sounded ridiculous. But rather than rush to pass judgment, I looked deeper.
For one thing, Lee has an existing presence in television production. He may have 'Spike' trademarked as a service mark for television production, not sure. In either case, there IS a 'confusion in marketplace' created by TNN using the name. Two courts have agreed. The key is that it is is USAGE FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR PURPOSE, so comparisons to Spike Dudley, or Spike on Buffy, or Spike Jones, or Spike the Dog from Tom and Jerry cartoons are invalid. By the same token, if someone were to come up with the brillian idea of a channel showing 24 hour Spelling Bee's, I'm sure Aaron Spelling would have something to say should they decide to name their new network "Spelling TV". Why? Because, again, it could cause confusion in the marketplace, and people tuning in may expect to see 90210 and instead find young Jimmy struggling to spell 'hypocrisy' in front of his 5th grade class, thus souring them to Aaron Spelling's name, indirectly damaging his reputation in the public eye through no fault of his own.
Note that I'm not saying that Spike Lee is right and Viacom is wrong. Just that this case does have some validity, and should be persued. And on a side note, it always amuses me when people bring up the "McDonalds coffee lady" when trying to prove the danger in frivolous lawsuits. Considering the coffee they sold her was not only hot, but near-boiling, caused third degree burns over 6% of her body, and McDonalds knew about problems caused by selling coffee that hot, the lawsuit was absoutely justified. But don't take my word for it, here's a link - http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Cheers
While I agree that something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits, I don't think this case should be written off without looking a bit deeper into it first. Granted, when I first heard about this, it sounded ridiculous. But rather than rush to pass judgment, I looked deeper.
For one thing, Lee has an existing presence in television production. He may have 'Spike' trademarked as a service mark for television production, not sure. In either case, there IS a 'confusion in marketplace' created by TNN using the name. Two courts have agreed. The key is that it is is USAGE FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR PURPOSE, so comparisons to Spike Dudley, or Spike on Buffy, or Spike Jones, or Spike the Dog from Tom and Jerry cartoons are invalid. By the same token, if someone were to come up with the brillian idea of a channel showing 24 hour Spelling Bee's, I'm sure Aaron Spelling would have something to say should they decide to name their new network "Spelling TV". Why? Because, again, it could cause confusion in the marketplace, and people tuning in may expect to see 90210 and instead find young Jimmy struggling to spell 'hypocrisy' in front of his 5th grade class, thus souring them to Aaron Spelling's name, indirectly damaging his reputation in the public eye through no fault of his own.
Note that I'm not saying that Spike Lee is right and Viacom is wrong. Just that this case does have some validity, and should be persued. And on a side note, it always amuses me when people bring up the "McDonalds coffee lady" when trying to prove the danger in frivolous lawsuits. Considering the coffee they sold her was not only hot, but near-boiling, caused third degree burns over 6% of her body, and McDonalds knew about problems caused by selling coffee that hot, the lawsuit was absoutely justified. But don't take my word for it, here's a link - http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Cheers